HB 1698 revises Missouri’s antibullying law by repealing and reenacting section 160.775, RSMo, to create a more detailed statewide framework for school district and charter school antibullying policies. The bill renames the section “Sawyer’s Law” and expands the definition of bullying to include intimidation, unwanted aggressive behavior, harassment, cyberbullying, and retaliation, so long as the conduct is repetitive or likely to be repeated and substantially interferes with a student’s safety, education, or school operations. It also defines cyberbullying, crime, and zero-tolerance disciplinary policy, and requires policies to apply to all students equally rather than listing protected classes for special treatment.
The bill requires each district and charter school to include its antibullying policy in the student handbook and to adopt specific procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to bullying. Among other things, employees who witness bullying must report it immediately, principals must begin investigations within two school days, investigations must generally be completed within ten school days, and written reports must document findings and responses. The bill also requires parent notification, anti-retaliation protections, annual notice and training, student education about bullying, counseling and support measures, and monthly reporting to school boards on bullying, school violence, and related crimes. It further authorizes schools to discipline cyberbullying with a sufficient nexus to the educational environment, provides liability protections for good-faith interventions and discipline, and prohibits charter schools from expelling or transferring a student solely because of bullying reports.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to replace the existing antibullying statute with a more prescriptive set of minimum policy requirements for school districts and charter schools. It would standardize how bullying is defined, reported, investigated, documented, and addressed across Missouri schools, while also clarifying when cyberbullying may be regulated and how bullying incidents may intersect with child abuse reporting laws. The measure also adds procedural protections for students who act in self-defense and limits the use of zero-tolerance discipline in antibullying policies.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text alone, the overall sentiment appears supportive of stronger antibullying protections, clearer reporting duties, and more structured school responses. At the same time, the bill contains several provisions that could draw concern from school administrators or civil liberties advocates, including the ban on protected-class lists, the immediate reporting requirement, monthly board reporting, expanded cyberbullying jurisdiction, and the limits on charter school expulsion or transfer based solely on bullying allegations.
HB 1698 would substantially revise section 160.775, RSMo, by replacing the current antibullying statute with a more detailed statewide mandate for school district and charter school policies. It would require specific definitions, reporting timelines, investigation procedures, parent notifications, training, board reporting, and anti-retaliation protections, while also adding liability protections for good-faith interventions and discipline. The bill would also affect related statutes and practices by tying bullying incidents to child abuse reporting under section 210.115 and by clarifying school authority over cyberbullying and self-defense-related discipline.
No committee discussion or vote history is included, so the record does not show formal support or opposition. The bill’s structure suggests a generally pro-student-safety and pro-accountability approach, with an emphasis on stronger antibullying enforcement and clearer school duties. Potentially mixed reactions may arise from the bill’s more rigid reporting and investigation requirements, its prohibition on protected-class-specific policy language, and its limits on charter school discipline options.
The main points of contention likely involve how prescriptive the bill is for schools and how it balances student protections with administrative discretion. School officials may object to the immediate reporting rule, the short investigation deadlines, monthly board reporting, and the requirement to avoid zero-tolerance policies. Advocates for vulnerable students may object to the bill’s prohibition on listing protected classes in antibullying policies, arguing it could weaken targeted protections. There may also be debate over the scope of cyberbullying jurisdiction, the self-defense provision, and the restriction preventing charter schools from expelling or transferring a student solely because of bullying reports.